If You Ever Had Any Doubts About FOX!!!

Barrck Obama was supposed to be the first postracial president. Instead Barack Obama's the most racial president. Obama was suppose to put race behind us as a nation?" Well guess what, its worse.

Charles Krauthammer had a great point and that is the country had an argument over the size of government, and the people that wanted big government lost, so now they go back to the race card, which is what they always do when they're in trouble. They're cheapening the whole notion of race and racial differences.


It turns out that Breitbart was right. Sherrod did not have an epiphany when she was at the USDA. When she was speaking to the NAACP she did not have an epiphany about, "You know what? If you listen to the whole speech (43 minutes) she's racist. The NAALCP is racist. Obama is racist. And this whole story has been manipulated, wined and dined, formed and flaked in order present the usual template that it's conservatives who are racist. The left lives off race. They thrive on it. The people demanding an end to racism are the last people that want to end racism.

 

How come I get the impression that this thread has turned into a bunch of white guys opining on race?

 

Ah now then one shoudnt disregard someones views simply due to the coloutr of there skin that could be construed as racism

 

lol I agree. Even though the UK is as about as racially diverse as North Dakota.

 

In my experience, people who live in racially segregated areas find it very easy to claim not to be racist.

 

LOL. Until one of "them" moves into your neighborhood.

 

Ain't that the truth.

Ya know what is worse than being racist. Claiming not to be racist for the sake of political correctness when you really have no interaction with people outside your race on a day to day basis. I would prefer those people either decline to answer the question or say you don't know.

 

I have found that some of the most racist people I've met live in "white ghettos". They've never had any exposure to minorities but make their judgements based on what they see minorities do on TV. I think that it is far more common for people to be racist if they have never had any real interactions with anyone other than people that look just like they do. I grew up in an all white neighborhood and racial slurs were common and accepted. The idea that people that have had little exposure to people of other racial backgrounds being somehow more accepting of the people they've never met but then develop prejudices once they do meet them, seems just silly. How did you get this so backwards?

 

I didn't get it backwards, you are a professor who doesn't know how to read. I said that it is easy for them to CLAIM they are not racist. I grew up in the backwoods in rural PA. There is no place in the north more racist and segregated than where I lived. There were exactly two black students in my 1000 person high school. The majority of the people who lived in my area were extremely racist and among each other had no problems showing their racist behavior. However, to the general public, they were very PC.

You are so intent on arguing with your perceived enemy (me) that you can't even realize that we agree. And you are the one teaching our youth, ****ing great!

 

That is the biggie, I think. But it has to be real, personal interactions. Not just a wave and a hello to a neighbor who has never been in your home...and probably never will be.

I think a person can easily grow up in a diverse area but still be racist if they only stick to their own. And that is what people tend to do most of the time...stick to people who look like them, act like them, etc regardless of the racial makeup of where they live. It's the easy, comfortable way. Birds of a feather and all that.

But, in a racially diverse area, there is at least the possibility of real interaction...although it is far from a certainty that it will happen.

 

Hopefully I can still converse logically with you. Please go back and look at the time frame these events actually happened. I think you will find it rather interesting that most of Fox's coverage did not occur until AFTER Shirley Sherrod was fired. Obama actually was reacting to the NAACP's story.

 

Regardless of the reactions that followed the main offense, and I do believe that the administration and the NAACP reacted badly, there would have been nothing to react to if this conservative blogger Breitbart hadn't created and gotten Fox to jump all over the completely misleading video. Like I said, the reactions were obviously too hasty but why do you have this guy out there spewing this trash in the name of conservatism in the first place and why was Fox so eager to run it over and over without any attempt to authenticate it? It was a complete, total smear job and now the Right wants to know why people reacted so strongly to it. The greater question is why does the Right feel it necessary to involve itself in such sleezy tactics in the first place?

 

Just curious. Do you even know who owns the video to begin with?

 

Especially in a fascist state that's already bought and paid for.

 

What difference does it make who "owns" the video? A video is just something that gets copied and edited over and over. Ownership becomes sort of a non-issue. I do know who first posted it to their website and who which was the first cable network to run it in a continuous loop for 24 hours.

Now the Righties want to say that this wasn't a Right wing attempt at a sleezy smear by one of their own. They can lie to themselves all they want and twist this nonsense into a pretzel for all I care but I am many people see this was just another below the belt tactic the Right wing is famous for. Will the Right ever wake up and reject the 1930's Hitler-esk propaganda tactics or do the ends justify the means? Is no cost too high for them? Are they so willing to take this country down with them? Incidents like these and the plethora of others make it seem very likely.

But by all means tell me, who owns the video?

 

Yay! Godwin's Law proven true again!

 

I think it would be exceedingly difficult to cite the use of fascist tactics without the inevitable comparison to the best example from history, i.e. Nazi propaganda. Fascism after all is a product of the Right not the Left. In Mein Kampf, Hitler details the same use of lies and repeating lies over and over as a propaganda technique and cites specifically the "child-like" nature of the majority of the citizenry. They will believe anything if you tell it to them enough times. Hitler knew this and used it and also wrote that truth was irrelevant. Obviously truth has taken a beating in the Right wing media and the repetitive message has become the standard.

The solution to this situation is and always has been education. What is the typical Right winger's opinion of education? They usually characterized educators and the educated as elitists and socialists exactly as Hitler characterized them. Strange how history has a habit of repeating itself eh?

 

Yes, Fascism is from the Right and Communism is from the Left but both are just a means to an end...power and control. As much as the hard core Dems like to throw around Fascism and the hard core Repos like to throw around Communism, they both just lose their meaning.

I wonder if there is a Godwin's Law for Communism? If so, they both are proven right all the time on PWRE.

 

Fox? Guilty? Sounds "right" to me.